Talk:Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

first name of Mr. Limarev?

According to various sources [1] [2] [3] the first name of Mr. Limarev is Yevgeny (sometimes also spelled Jevgeni or Evgeny) but not Andrey. the information from the source (focus-fen.net) cited in the article seems to be incorrect. --Spitzl 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence against Andrey Lugovoy?

195.178.214.156 10:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Scorpio

British officials several times said, what they have "a lot of evidence" against Andrey Lugovoy. However, currently I found no sources to confirm this statement. Can anybody give me link to any sources, confirming these claims? TIA.

Should we update this article?

A lot of new publications appeared, such as this [4]. So, should we update this article? Do not you think that some of his murder theories are now outdated and should be deleted?Biophys 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Detailed scheme

195.178.214.156 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Scorpio

At last I have a detailed scheme of all movements of Litvinenko, Lugovoy & Kovtun during their first visit to London, at 16-17.10.2006. Here:

http://img.rg.ru/img/content/16/79/48/lugovoi.gif

However all comments are in Russian. If anybody wants to make an English-language version, I can help with translation.

Reference to Article 63 of the Russian Constitution

I removed claims that according to the Russian Constitution there is a legal possibility that Mr Lugovoi can be extradited to the UK. The claim was based on Article 63. Here's four secondary sources that argue that Article 63 does not apply to Russian citizens (all in Russian):

Yury Petrachenko 09:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article 63, part 2 of Russian Constitution was a valid primary source.
  • The limits imposed by its anonymous interpretation #2 ("Речь в данном случае идет о лицах, не являющихся гражданами Российской Федерации") are questionable.
  • The interpretation #3 by Okunkov L.A. (no academic merits listed) mixes up article 63, part 2 (extradition of accused) with article 61, part 1 (exile and unspecified hand-over, "выдача"). Even assuming that both 63.2 and 61.1 cover the same issue, that would make Russian Constitution self-contradictory.
  • The anonymous commentary #4 refers to article 13, part 1 of Russian Criminal Code,[5] but I doubt that the Criminal Code overrules the Constitution.
  • Commentary #1 (V.I. Andrianov, Candidate of Law Sciences) stipulates that the extradition is the right but not the obligation of Russia.
Thanks for bringing up the issue and providing secondary sources.ilgiz 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I think I have to insist that the reference and the interpretation of Article 63 should be removed. Wikipedia's official policy says

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

So far I have provided 4 independent secondary sources (all I was able to find within a reasonable effort) that interpret the Constitution the other way than you propose. Unless you support your claims with reliable secondary sources, the claim ought to be removed. (If you agree with me, please modify the article yourself.) Now, all the four references above are published sources and were peer-reviewed to be included into Garant. If you check the links more carefully, reference #4 is not anonymous:

Постатейный научно-практический комментарий к Конституции Российской Федерации коллектива ученых-правоведов под руководством ректора МГЮА, академика РАН О.Е.Кутафина

I can assure you that MSAL enjoys the highest reputation among Russian law schools, and being a full member (академик) of the RAS is the highest academic honour in Russia. In the relevant paragraph this source clearly states:

Речь идет об иностранных гражданах и лицах без гражданства, так как запрет выдачи российских граждан установлен Конституцией.

And the reference to the Criminal Code is not used to support this opinion but rather to indicate how the Constitution applies further.
I think this source alone is enough to rule out your interpretation. Please show a reliable source that argues the opposite. Wikipedia is about reporting on secondary sources, not original research. When you "refute" a statement in a published scientific source, it is not enough to just claim so, you should provide a scholarly source that does the trick. Thanks for your cooperation, it's a pleasure to deal with you.
Yury Petrachenko 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for labeling the secondary sources "anonymous" as you pointed me to their authorship.
I looked for opinions supporting my interpretation of Constitution and I found a letter by Prof Daniel Tarschys published as a comment in Financial Times 19 July 2007.[6] He says that article 63 "opens the door" for the extradition. According to Tarschys, Russia has signed an international treaty on extraditions in 1999. He also refers to European Convention on Extradition (1957)[7]
The year 2000 declaration by Russia linking 6.1.a of the Convention with 61.1 of the Constitution seems to regard the right to refuse the extradition. It is only Constitution that mentions an obligation to refuse the extradition in 61.1.ilgiz 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, Prof. Tarschys's comment is not a reliable source for this encyclopedia. It is still only an opinion, not backed by any scientific-quality arguments. He argues that the international treaties by Russian Federation prevail the constitution. The sources I provided above argue that Article 15 states that the constitution is the highest-order law in Russia, being above any other laws or international treaties by Russia. I think you need to find scholarly sources that argue otherwise, not someone's opinions. --Yury Petrachenko 05:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe almost everything found in Wikipedia is a collection of references to verifiable opinions. A scientific quality evidence is an opinion (conjecture) expressed by a scientist or a group of scientists in a respected peer-reviewed publication. I cannot say Financial Times is a scientific publication, but I am going to provide Prof. Tarschys's opinion as a reliable one.ilgiz 05:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Scaramella is in prison?

195.178.214.156 10:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Scorpio

Does anybody know?

If it was just about his cheap provocations and calumny against Italian officials (as it is officially stated) -- why he wasn't in jail before? I wonder, why he was trialed and sentenced *after* Litvinenko affair -- somebody must be extremely naive to believe, what these incidents have nothing in common... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.214.156 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 31 July 2007

== Why polonium-210? == I have made some calculations. They do not confirm fully the version of a poisoning with polonium 210. The version of a poisoning with polonium 208 is probable too. Unfortunately I yet have not translated my calculations on English language but when there will be time I shall be engaged in this business.

  • the source is not available at this time--Lawpuh 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Now you can see my draft here--Lawpuh 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)--Lawpuh 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a very clear article

It is my understanding from the various linked sources that Litvinenko eat at the sushi bar before meeting at the pine bar. (although at lot of the news articles actually have it the other way around). The Sushi Bar was contaminated at least a week before, along with a lot of other places Lugovoy & Kovtun visited and it was a coincidence that Litvinenko ate there, before he actually got poisoned. This is not very clear in the article and the reader is left with the impression that Litvinenko must have been poisoned at the sushi bar.

Limarev may or may not be missing, but it is more probable from the sources that he has gone into hiding and has not been killed. --82.35.196.149 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Radiation dose/activity

Forgive me, I'm a medical radiation physicist but I've never contributed anything to wikipedia (despite being an avid reader). I have found fault with the following sentence in this article:

"The effect on Litvinenko appears consistent with a radiation dose of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po."

2 GBq refers to an activity, not a dose. The sentence should read something like:

The effect on Litvinenko appears consistent with an administered activity of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po.

The dose to the patient (or victim, in this case) is measured in Sieverts. Please see [[8]] and [[9]]

Hope this is of help,

Jonnylaney (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Jonnylaney (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This article might be ready for GAC, then FAC.

This article has stabilised a lot recently (due to there being no new news, mostly). I think it's good enough to shoot for WP:GAC and eventually, WP:FAC. Accordingly, I'll nominate it for GAC today. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image was deleted for want of a justification.

Gah! The stupid admins went and deleted the image of Litvinenko at the top of this article because it didn't have a fair use template describing it's use in this article. Does anyone have the original image lying around somewhere (or know where it came from) so we can repost it with the right red-tape attached to it. I think the same thing happened to the 'death bed' photo that was here originally. There was zero notification of the deletion either here or on the Alexander Litvinenko talk page - but if someone can repost it (or better still, let me know where to find it) - I'll fill in the necessary template to make sure it's not deleted again. SteveBaker (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GA comment

At a quick glance the lead needs to be expanded to several paragraphs per WP:LEAD, and all of the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed. I'd recommend fixing these before someone reviews the article as it may be quick-failed for having the "cn" tags. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've attended to the "citation needed" tags - in most cases we just needed to point to existing references (an article with over 200 citations is REALLY unlikely to have citations that are truly missing!). I have expanded out the introductory section. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the lead should be expanded further, go into further detail on some of the more important sections and briefly detail some other sections as well. Also, there are multiple single sentences throughout the article. I'd recommend either expanding on them with more information or incorporating them into another paragraph as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. It looks like somebody is reviewing this article right now, so I'm sure you'll see some more detailed requirements that should be met before it passes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

There are too many different assassination theories dated 2006. Should we remove some of the outdated theories to make this article more readable? Right now only two theories remain (I guess): murder by Russian agents and Berezovsky theory. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly debatable. On the one hand, currently, many of those theories are known to be untrue - on the other hand they were theories at the time and that makes them part of the historical story about the events at the time. I kinda lean towards keeping them - but perhaps shortening their descriptions and putting them into a new sub-section "Discredited theories" or some such. SteveBaker (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe they should be shortened a little.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
An exception however is "Blackmail plot theory". This chapter simply does not make any claims who presumably killed Litvinenko. It does not provide any theory of his death. It only tells that Litvinenko was involved in blackmail of unknown persons.Biophys (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This could be described as a "Svetlichnaya controversy", but I think this is simply not notable.Biophys (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes - but the clear implication is that whoever Litvinenko was allegedly blackmailing would have a strong motive to kill him. If the blackmail claim had been proven to be true (which it wasn't) then the blackmail victim would surely have been high on the list of suspects. But this is now in the realms of speculating about the (known-to-be-false) speculation. So maybe dumping that one is a good plan! SteveBaker (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It did not even tell who was allegedly blackmailed. Whole controversy was around words of a graduate student. It would be great if you looked through the article and edit whatever you think should be edited. Or may be you could comment on something that should be fixed. Thanks. Biophys (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

  • "It led them on a trail involving hundreds of people and dozens of locations it was reported on June 5, 2007" - poorly phrased
I cut this myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "However a lower activity was estimated by a different worker." - needs a citation or removal
I cut this myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Irène Joliot-Curie was the first person to die because of exposure to polonium. Her parents Marie and Pierre Curie were first to discover and name this new element in 1898." - a bit of a fragment, probably best to merge into another paragraph. Similarly merge the two single-sentence paragraphs in the "Sources of polonium" and "Possibly related events" sections.
Not done.
  • "even in a product sold on Amazon.com." and "sources in the USA during 2006" and "paid Ms Svetlichnaja's legal costs" - format external links as references
Not done.
  • Remove redlinks of people's names, eg Viktor Ilyukhin, Marina Litvinenko and Philip Walker
These have been done. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Yushenkov's death and the conviction and jailing of the co-chairman of Liberal Russia for his murder is widely perceived to have been part of a policy of eliminating the political threat posed by Berezovsky to the establishment. Therefore the accusations from the FSB of Berezovsky's involvement warrant careful consideration." - sounds like OR, need a reliable source that makes this point explicitly and then attribute this interpretation to this source.
I removed the segment. This should be described in Berezovsky article.Biophys (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Subsequently the Duma, on a pro-Kremlin party block vote, sealed all materials related to Ryazan incident for the next 75 years" - citation needed
Reference provided.Biophys (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold for now, but its almost there. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All good comments - I don't have time to fix them up right now - but if nobody else gets there first, I'll fix these last few things in the next few days. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, drop me a note on my talk page when you're done. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for help, Tim. But please correct my last version since I have accomodated already a lot of your comments. If you think Svetlichnaysa controversy should stay - please put it back. If you think introduction is not good - please correct it. You are very welcome to do that.Biophys (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, a part of intruduction could be shortened like that: "Litvinenko accused Russian secret services of organizing numerous terrorist acts, most notably Russian apartment bombings." This way we simply refer to other existing articles.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all of these have been done, but the majority have and the more serious OR has gone. This is good enough for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

The lead where it lists all of Alexander Litvinenko's accusation has nothing to do with the poisoning. This is an article on his poisoning, not on Alexander Litvinenko and his accusations. It is just listing his accusations against the Russian government, essentially repeating the arguments of the Russian government involvement theory, which is against WP:NPOV because there were several theories. I left the Litvinenko's deathbed allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB) and his public accusations that the Russian government was behind his unusual malady resulted in worldwide media coverage. which summarizes it sufficiently and with NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that segment "Litvinenko's deathbed allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB)..." is important and should stay there. But what exactly "misdeed allegations"? This should be explained. Perhaps his allegations should be described in a separate section and only briefly mentioned in the Introduction (as they actually were), but they must be described. Otherwise, it is unclear what we are talking about.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That single sentence is sufficient, it says that he made claims about the FSB and about the government, these allegations can be described in the body of the article. The subsequent sentences detailing his allegations have nothing to do with the poisoning. Either you remove it all or you keep it all, you can't have it how you like and keep the parts that are favourable to you and remove the parts that are not.--Miyokan (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The Introduction serves only to briefly summarize main content of an article. We have a separate section that describes everything about extradition of Lugovoy. We should not duplicate this material in Introduction, although we can briefly mention it. This is even not about Litvinenko, but about Lugovoy. As about claims by Litvinenko himself, they are more relevant to subject of this article, and we only briefly mention them in Introduction and provide additional information in footnotes. Biophys (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The Introduction serves only to briefly summarize main content of an article. The loads of information about Litvinenko's accusations in the lead has nothing to do with poisoning, although we can briefly mention it.--Miyokan (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As current version properly tells, "Litvinenko's deathbed allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB) and his public accusations that the Russian government was behind his unusual malady resulted in worldwide media coverage.". So, this is a matter of notability. The poisoning is notable in part because of Litvinenko allegations. He blames Putin of crimes, and he is allegedly poisoned on the order from Putin (per sources). Hence the allegations by Litvinenko may be directly related to his murder. That is what sources tell, not me.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That is just the Russian government involvement theory and can easily be summed up in one sentence with the details going into the 'Theories' section. Simarly, Lugovoi said that British intelligence agents of being behind the killing, and claimed MI6 had tried to recruit him to spy on Russia, and the Daily Mail reported that he was working for MI6. That is what sources tell, not me.--Miyokan (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You said: "Either you remove it all or you keep it all". O'K, let's remove it all to make Introduction more readable and leave only bare facts and only about Litvinenko himself amd his poisoning, rather than anything else.Biophys (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Original research

I deleted the following segment:

"However, Article 63 of the Russian constitution is about foreign citizens or people without citizenship (it says that extradition of such people is governed by federal law or international treaty), not Russian citizens, as Andrei Lugovoi is, and therefore does not apply to them. Article 61 explicity forbids Russian citizens from being extradited. Article 15 applies only to legislation, not the Constitution - the precedence of international treaties applies only to legislation, not the Constitution. Furthermore, when the Russian Federation ratified the European Convention on Extradition, it entered a declaration concerning Article 6 in these terms: “The Russian Federation declares that in accordance with Article 61 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a citizen of the Russian Federation may not be extradited to another state.” Hence Russia cannot extradite Andrei Lugovoy.[10] [11]"


This is an original reserach of a primary source (Russian law) by a wikipedian. He cites primary sources and then makes his own conclusion: "Hence Russia cannot extradite Andrei Lugovoy". No, it can, as Vladimir Putin said. Instead, there is a cited opinion of a Professor, legal expert. Please do not remove it again.Biophys (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology section

Ehh, what is up with these chronology of events sections? First off it is way too long, second, I am noticing somewhat of a trend how these sections are used for POV pushing of a certain conspiracy theory. Just glancing over it 3/4 of the info is irrelevant and is mostly used to show how Putin/Russian Government are linked to the poisoning (ie by including dates about Putin and other government related events). The theory of the involvement of the Russian government is far from fact as it has not been proven, so it is a pure speculation. I have said this before in another article,but the purpose of the section is to have a time line of the actual events that happened, and it is NOT to prove your theory of how/why the events happened. So I tagged it as POV for now,but we should go through each of the events and throw out anything not related to the poisoning. Let me know what you think.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology does not include any statements like "he was poisoned by Putin". All chronology events are related to (a) Litvinenko himself, or (b) his writings and claims, or (c) to different theories of his death, or (d) it provides some background information. If something is not connected, please tell exactly what it is.Biophys (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

Article reads "Alexander Litvinenko was a former lieutenant colonel of Russian Federal Security Service... Main suspect of the case, a former KGB officer Andrei Lugovoy ". As far as I know and care, they worked for the same organization. Should not it be clear from the lead or would such clarity destroy saintly picture of "former lieutenant colonel of Russian Federal Security Service" (who has patience to read it?) killed by wile "former KGB officer"? RJ CG (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Litvinenko is usually regarded as someone who worked in FSB, although he also worked in the KGB earlier. Lugovoy denied working for the FSB (hence, the KGB which he did not deny).Biophys (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"regarded as someone who worked in FSB" by Berezovsky's spin doctors you mean? They started and ended to work for the same employer roughly in the same time, so should not we use the same name for the same organization in both cases? RJ CG (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide any source that Lugovoy worked in FSB.Biophys (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Limarev

I think Limarev is very much relevant here (the segment about him just was deleted). Article from Russian WP tells:

Как заявил жившущий во Франции Евгений Лимарев, по некоторым утверждениям входящий в окружение Бориса Березовского (в 1988—1991 работал переводчиком и преподавал иностранные языки в учебном центре ПГУ СССР, затем занимался бизнесом[85][86], по его предположению, организаторами убийства Литвиненко выступали российские силовики, а заказчиком — министр обороны (впоследствии вице-премьер) Сергей Иванов.[87] Он также заявлял о том, что «в последнее время» у Литвиненко возникли разногласия с Березовским и в связи с этим спецслужбы Великобритании предупреждали Литвиненко о существующей опасности для его жизни.[86]

Согласно историку разведки Борису Володарскому, проживающему в Лондоне, Евгений Лимарев вошёл в доверие к Литвиненко и Скарамелле, сотрудничая с российскими спецслужбами. Лимарев поставлял сфабрикованную информацию о КГБ и ФСБ не подозревавшему того Скарамелле, участвовавшему в итальянской «комиссии Митрохина». Электронное сообщение, которое Лимарев направил Скарамелле, оказалось провокационной наводкой на «спецназовцев» в Неаполе и фонд ветеранов дипломатической службы и разведки России «Честь и достоинство». По сведениям Володарского, официальное обвинение Скарамелле, по которому его позже задержали, — клевета на проживающего в Италии бывшего капитана КГБ Александра Талика.[88]

Бывший помощник Председателя правительства РФ, директор Института глобализации Михаил Делягин в интервью сайту Kasparov.ru назвал правдоподобной версию Лимарева о том, что организатором убийства Литвиненко является Иванов, однако подчеркнул, что он не мог выступить его заказчиком: «есть решения, которые носят политический характер, это не уровень Иванова, а гораздо более высокий (…)Иванов мог только выйти с предложением, но не мог дать окончательное добро» — считает М.Делягин.[23].

Supporting links: [12],[13], [14], [15], [16] [17] and this [18] Biophys (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound particularly relevant to what I removed. He was reported missing, then he was reported as being fine. What event is he related to regarding Litvinenkos poisoning? I mean yeah his name comes up a lot, but do you just want to write a bunch of stuff about how he might have been connected in subtle ways? The actual event of him going missing is moot, which is what I removed. Krawndawg (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, he is not missing.Biophys (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I was actually about to suggest we remove that section altogether. The only "possibly related event" left specifically says that the shooting is not thought to be related to Litvinenkos poisoning, something that was originally omitted from this article for some strange reason! Krawndawg (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most sources suggest this man was shot for commenting about Litvinenko. There are other events claimed to be related, such as poisoning of Gaidar. So, this section should be expanded.Biophys (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give me an hour to finish the editing? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, didn't mean to step your toes. Krawndawg (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
But you just did: [19]!Biophys (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
...Which is why I said I didn't mean to.Krawndawg (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I finished for now.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Polonium production

I removed the following segment:

This was disputed in a New York Sun article written by Edward Jay Epstein in March 2008, who says the claims are "at best speculation". According to Epstein, neither Russia nor any other country in the world admitted manufacturing any Polonium-210 at all in 2006. Epstein says: "Polonium-210 production is a closely guarded secret, and the quantity produced in Russia or in any other country is unknown." He asserts that "the Polonium-210 found in London could also have come from stockpiles in many countries, including America". Mr Epstein refers to the IAEA's Illicit Trafficking Data Base mentioning 14 incidents of missing industrial Polonium-210 since 2004.[1][2]

The claims about "closely guarded secrets" is nonsense. Russian government never denied production of polonium and openly sells it on the market. See these Russian sources: [20] [21]

N. B. Borisov, L. A. Il'in, U. Ya. Margulis, et al.,Radiation Safety in Working with Polonium-210 [in Russian], Énergoatomizdat, Moscow (1980).

5. Z. V. Ershova and A. G. Volgin, Polonium and Its Application [in Russian], Atomizdat, Moscow (1974)., and so on.

Also, "14 Illegal trafficing incidents" are about "the theft, loss, or disposal of static eliminators and air ionizers containing sealed Po-210 sources". This has nothing to do with amounts of polonium used to poison Litvinenko.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Biophys (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basing your removal of said paragraph on original research. WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- readers' ability to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not editors' beliefs about whether material is true."
Unless you can convince me that the new york sun is an unreliable source, it stays. Krawndawg (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This absurd statement contradicts a lot of other sources, not someones beliefs.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is a continous market for Po-210, and with a half life of 138 days, 86% of the inventory would disappear in a year. Paul Studier (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- readers' ability to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not editors' beliefs about whether material is true."
If you wish to get a third opinion or otherwise solve your problem by means other than edit warring, please feel free to do so. Otherwise please stop removing valid sourced additions from the article. There is no wiki policy that says you're allowed to remove reliably sourced information from an article because you believe it's wrong. All of the claims and opinions are clearly attributed to the person who wrote the article for anyone to see and decide for themselves whether or not it's factually correct. Further, you seem to be in violation of WP:OWN and WP:OR. Krawndawg (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, this contradicts a lot of sources, and I have provided these sources (see above). This has nothing to do with my opinion. If he claimed that Coca Cola trading was a "closely guarded secret" would you also include this? The polonium openly produced by Russia is just that kind of commodity. What I deleted is not a "minority view" but simply nonsense. We do not need such garbage in WP. This garbage is well below WP threshold per sources. Biophys (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- readers' ability to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not editors' beliefs about whether material is true." Get it through your head. You are directly violating one of wikipedias core policies. Any further attempts to remove this content and I will bring it to the attention of an admin. Krawndawg (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please give me a direct quote from one of those two articles that supports the sentence "Russian state openly acknowledged the production and trade of polonium in framework of international Nuclear non-proliferation agreements"? I read through the globalsecurity link and it did not support that claim, and the other link is quite long and a search of the words "openly" and "acknowledge" (and synonyms to those words) do not show up with anything. Thanks Krawndawg (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One more source questioning official British version and linking it to ultimate source. And I can't praise British investigative journalism highly enough. It didn't took them even two years to figure out that ALL key figures in black PR campaign are on Berezovsky's payroll. Would current generation of Wikipedians live long enough to see incredible investigation linking Litvinenko case to other propaganda wars? RJ CG (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate article about assassination theories. One can place it there.Biophys (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I added it to that article as well. Sorry but you are displaying WP:OWN again. You don't own this article. Please stop removing sourced, important content (yet again) because it goes against your personal point of view. Krawndawg (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Specter That Haunts the Death of Litvinenko, Edward Jay Epstein, March 19, 2008, New York Sun, retrieved on April 30, 2008
  2. ^ Factsheets & FAQs: Polonium-210, IAEA, retrieved April 30, 2008

Original research. Recent secondary sources, please.

The following text has been included.

"There exists a wrong opinion that a freelance killer would not be able to obtain polonium legally from commercially available products in the amounts used for Litvinenko poisoning, because more than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in state-controlled nuclear reactors... However, many commercial products contain polonium in potentially lethal amounts (see commercial products containing polonium for detail). The National Regulatory Commission informs that there were registered at least 8 cases in the USA during 2006 when potentially lethal polonium sources were lost or stolen.[33]. Losses of intense polonium sources were also registered in the UK [34], [35]. Polonium-210 had been first separated chemically from natural minerals in 1898 by Marie and Pierre Curie[36], 44 years before the first nuclear reactor was constructed."

Cited sources (such as 33-35) were published before the death of Litvinenko. All this chapter is WP:SYN by a wikipedian. Please provide any recent secondary source by an expert which disputes an assertion that Litvinenko was poisoned by such amount of polonium that could only be received from state-controlled reactors. All recent scholarly sources (cited in the article) tell precisely the opposite.Biophys (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nuclear experts insist that only a state would have the resources necessary to produce the polonium-210 used in the killing." [22].Biophys (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This report from the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom states: "The Russian security organs knew where Litvinenko lived. Before he died, Litvinenko said that he was monitored by Anatoliy Kirov, First Secretary of the Russian embassy in London.37 This was not of any particular importance. Litvinenko’s security awareness was only skin deep. He accepted invitations for conferences abroad where he took no security precautions, mingled freely with the wealthy Russian community in the UK and received journalists at home. He also flooded them with emails containing his increasingly outlandish conspiracy theories. If the Russian state intelligence or security organs wanted to get him, they could have done it a long time ago. They would have no difficulties luring him to a conference in a country less efficient and less concerned than the UK. Polonium, or any other lethal substance, would have been brought in a safe container, in diplomatic baggage. Those handling the substance would not have been exposed to radiation. If the perpetrators of the murder really wanted to confuse the investigators, they would have the means to put Polonium 210 on airlines in several places around the world, not only several British Airways flights. The argument that only the Russian state organs could have had access to the substance is also incorrect. It has been available outside Russia, and for years Chechen fighters were able to buy sophisticated weapons and equipment in Russia. It is only a matter of contacts and money." --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
So, it flatly tells: "The argument that only the Russian state organs could have had access to the substance is also incorrect. It has been available outside Russia" without providing any specifics. Of course, it was sold to US (outside Russia). That can be mentioned.Biophys (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"Polonium 210 is surprisingly common. It is used by industry in devices that eliminate static electricity, in low-powered brushes used to ionize the air next to photographic film so dust can be swept off easily, and in quite large machines placed end-to-end across a web of fabric moving over rollers in a textile mill. It is even used to control dust in clean rooms where computer chips and hard drives are made...
We must make it far less easy for them to acquiring polonium in deadly amounts. Polonium sources with about 10 percent of a lethal dose are readily available — even in a product sold on Amazon.com. Only modest restraints inhibit purchase of significantly larger amounts of polonium: as of next year, anyone purchasing more than 16 curies of polonium 210 — enough to make up 5,000 lethal doses — must register it with a tracking system run by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But this is vastly too high — almost no purchases on that scale are made by any industry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/opinion/19zimmerman.html . The author of the article (published after the death of Litvinenko) is a nuclear physicist. As you can see, he "disputes an assertion that Litvinenko was poisoned by such amount of polonium that could only be received from state-controlled reactors". --V1adis1av (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
So, where this source tells that 3 gigabecquerels of radioactivity received by Litvinenko could come not from state-controlled reactors? It only tells that Po is surprisingly common, which is fine to note, but this is hardly relevant to poisoning of Litvinenko. Some other poisons are also common. On the other hand, book Death of a Dissident tells explicitly (page 336) that:
"to obtain this amount of polonium from the end product available on the market, one would have to purchase hundreds of recently manufactured static-electricity devices and develop a technology for extracting, concentrating, and handling polonium, which would be virtually impossible for an amateur freelancer"
Your source tells precisely nothing about this.Biophys (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
1. Your source is a book written by a dance teacher and a microbiologist; my source is an article written by a nuclear safety expert. With all respect to the book's authors, it is not a reliable source in nuclear issues.
2. Buying hundreds of Po-containing devices cannot be a big problem for a potential nuclear terrorist in any case. In other article by Acton, Rogers, and Zimmerman, they write: "A Briton, Dhiren Barot, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2006 for planning to build a dirty bomb out of some 10,000 smoke detectors, each of which contains a small radioactive source, for use in London." 10,000 is two orders of magnitude more then hundreds.
3. Actually, no need to buy small devices. Zimmerman says about 16 Ci of Po-210 (that's 200 times more than 3 GBq) one may get without a strict state control. There are air ionizers with sources of as much as 7.4 GBq on the market (2.5 times the dose Litvinenko was killed by). They can be bought by anybody under "modest restraints" (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1717/nureg-1717.pdf , page 4-5; there are estimations on the page 4-7 that ~10000 of 7.4GBq air ionizers are produced and distributed annually in the US market).
4. The quoted articles by Zimmerman et al. clearly say about danger of illicit use of Po-containing devices by a group of nuclear terrorists. Just due to this Zimmerman propose to restrict the availability of such devices.
5.Other theories suggest that the polonium that killed Litvinenko might have been obtained from an officially tracked commercial supply after it reached its final customer. Polonium is commonly used in static eliminators in printing plants, photography labs and textile mills. In these applications, it is bound in extremely small quantities with other metals. Extracting the substance from the molds in which these mixtures are made would be difficult because "polonium science is quite complicated," Priest said. But with qualified scientists and the right lab conditions, it is possible. "I can see how they could be used to brew up a dose to kill one person," said Peter D. Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist and professor of science and security at King's College London. "It would require very delicate lab work."([23])
6. So, I provided you the recent secondary sources by experts which claim that the amount of polonium Litvinenko was poisoned by could be received from non-state-controlled supply. These opinions should be reflected in the article. --V1adis1av (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Goldfard is a specialist (with a PhD degree) on the radiation damage (he worked in the nuclear physics Kurchatov institute to study DNA damage). So, this source is good. The key segment you cited tells the following: "Other theories suggest that...". Right. That is where this information belongs: Litvinenko assassination theories. You are very welcome to place it there.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have checked by Scopus all 67 scientific works by A.D.Goldfarb (since his first paper in 1972) and was not able to find in the abstracts any word about radiation. He worked in the Kurchatov Institute but it's a big organization and a lot of scientists working there who aren't experts in radiation. His PhD thesis, AFAIK, was not related to radiation damage. Due to this, his book cannot be a reliable source of information on nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry.
A good idea concerning the Litvinenko assassination theories, but now we talk about correction of this article. I don't like the following phrases: 1)"A freelance killer would not be able to obtain polonium legally from commercially available products in the amounts used for Litvinenko poisoning, because more than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in state-controlled nuclear reactors. [31][32]" 2)"This of course does not exclude the possibility that the polonium that killed Litvinenko was imported by a licensed commercial distributor, but no one—including the Russian government—has proposed that this is likely." As you see, there exist serious opinions contradicted the 1st claim and their existing itself disproves the 2nd one. The references are not reliable sources: [31] -- the book by Goldfarb, [32] -- the article by Pavel Felgenhauer, ex-biologist, currently a military reviewer, columnist-freelancer. The current view of the chapter seems biased in favour of the (as for me, very doubtful) theory that only state-employed assassins could have lethal amount of Po-210. No other theories are not mentioned. And, just by the way, Po-210 is not a synthetic element -- it is a naturally occurring isotope. --V1adis1av (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
He studied reparation of the DNA damaged by vaious factors including radiation (hence the Kurcahtov institute; something was possibly classified). Main point: the predominant theory is that Litvinenko was poisioned by state actors. We have two different articles: John F. Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Same is here.Biophys (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Death of a Dissident in some ways could be regarded as a WP:PRIMARY source, as its authors are closely related to the subject matter; it is evident they are presenting a particular bias in the book, as you have noted they did not mention the "paedophile claims against Putin", even though we have reliable sources which state that he did make these claims; that book may be used as a source of information, but it can not be regarded as the only and ultimate source for information in the article, or used for the exclusion of information thereof. If there are sources which contradict each other, WP:NPOV dictates that we present these views within in the article, i.e. Source A says "this", whilst Source B says "that". In the formulation of prose, there can't be WP:OR so we state what the reliable sources state in our own words, we don't present one POV as being wrong or right, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and most of all WP is a collaborative effort; and this goes for all editors. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspects, etc

Why are Scaramella, Berezovsky, etc not listed under suspects? Litvinenko at first accused Scaramella of poisoning him. Berezovsky, as reported widely in the press, had much reason for offing Litvinenko. There are other suspects as well, but these are not mentioned anywhere. Or is it, that we are trying to build an inherrently POV article in which we are trying to make out that Putin the Baby Eater is guilty of killing Litvinenko? That is one reason for calling into the neutrality of the article. Another reason is the over-dependence of pertinent information being sourced to Goldfarb and Litvinenko's book - anyone can pay and get a book published, and I am sure it makes for great kookery reading - but others have called into question key facts in the book and the entire case. There is much neutralising in this article to be done because one can pretend that it is even close to NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

By whom are they suspected? By you and several freaks? Who cares? You seem to cite WP:BLP only when it suits your agenda. Colchicum (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I will provide a whole heap of articles for people's information, and will do so as I go thru my Zotero archives. As to WP:BLP, where have I mentioned BLP anywhere here? And I don't cite it only when it suits my agenda, I cite it when I come across it and when there is a breach of BLP (Putin is a paedophile anyone?!?). Seems to me that some people aren't too happy that I am here, and I will be pushing such issues now and in the future; the days of nuttery reigning supreme are numbered. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the official British investigation nuttery? I don't think so. Unlike the guy you have cited (who sincerely confesses that he doesn't know much about the case) and the Russian telepathic "investigators", they have access to the crime scene at the very least. Other theories shouldn't be given undue weight. Colchicum (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are Fringe Theories Russavia. Grey Fox (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

They aren't fringe theories, they are theories which have been presented by much of the Russian press and the government itself. We have to provide all POV as per WP:NPOV, not just the POV of the British government, or the British press. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
If they are presented by the Russian government then they should be mentioned under government responses somewhere, but as a notable fringe theory. Grey Fox (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotation source.

In the "Death and last statement", there's a quotation with an incorrect source (note #5). Does anyone know the true source of this quotation, in order to reference it properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.56.207 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Po-210 concentration in the body of Litvinenko

This paragraph is only about wether Litvinenkos grave should be sealed for twenty or so years. The few sentences that are noteworthy (e.g. The symptoms seen in Litvinenko appeared consistent with an administered activity of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po. That is 200 times the median lethal dose of around 238 μCi or 50 nanograms in the case of ingestion[16]. should be moved to "the Poisoning" The calculations thereafter belongs in the talk pages at best (i understand why you should not cremate his body, but why is it so dangerous to open the coffin if the radiation cant even penetrate ordinary paper?) Erikhansson1 (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a mistake in this section I think. The unit was millicurie (mCi) at first but became megacurie (MCi) in the following paragraph. This is a typical typo and it has raised the concentration 1012 times. 58.41.104.222 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The lethal dose of 50ng seems very unlikely. If Litvinenko would really have absorbed 200 times the LD50, he would have died within days, not weeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness#More_than_50_Sv_.28.3E5.2C000_rem.29
Furthermore, when looking at the source of the 50ng figure and scrolling down a bit further, a second number pops up: 0.89 micrograms. If that is the right figure, Litvinenko actually absorbed 10 times the LD50, which would be much more in line with his symptoms and survival time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness#10.E2.80.9350_Sv_.281.2C000.E2.80.935.2C000_rem.29

http://www.3rd1000.com/elements/Polonium.htm#Acute%20Effects OneAhead (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Current situation

The section lists the most recent development as belonging to 2008. It is 2010. Can this section be updated? Has the case been sent to court, or closed, at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.0.27 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is he not listed as one of the journalists who were killed?

Unlike many of the people listed under List of journalists killed in Russia, Alexander Litvinenko is actually a pretty clear case of murder and the evidence against Russian authorities is pretty good. Yet he is not listed as one of the journalists who died. He is one of the people responsible for bringing to the attention of the general public the fact that many journalists have died under mysterious circumstances after criticizing Putin, but he is not listed. Maybe he did not die in Russia, but we have no other article for these journalists. As things are, unless you remember the radioactive element involved in the poisoning or his name, you will NEVER find this article on Wikipedia, and I think that is a shame. If I recall correctly, there were others who were killed in other countries with similar circumstances and allegations, and I guess we have no article for that if we are limiting our scope to only those who died in Russia, and not in the former Soviet republics or in other countries, for instance those in Europe. This is far from a fringe conspiracy theory, as it is the official position of the authorities and governments involved and legal action was even taken in this case, as noted in the article. Of course since we are limited to journalists, other poisonings like that of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko have no place, but he's not a journalist, so that can't be helped. I'm sure some will say that widening the scope only makes the article longer and where is the end, but I think at the very least the journalists killed directly after criticizing Putin is notable, and since they aren't listed in Putin's article (and they should not be; at best we should have a link there), they should live somewhere in Wikipedia. I also think it is sad that the plight of journalists is not anywhere in the articles for Vladimir Putin, or even under Criticism of Vladimir Putin. I know that many editors feel that quite apart from the disdain some feel for criticism sections in general there is a problem in putting too much in there, usually with the reason given is concern that it might violate WP:BLP. But given what is in there already, that this criticism is definitely notable, and further that the accusation has been made that the number of journalists killed increased dramatically under Putin (which is borne out by that article), I think it should be there, too. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? Most likely because he never was a journalist. Working for a state or terrorist propaganda organ does not a journalist make. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What propaganda organ is he supposed to have been a part of? Where was he ever accused of being a terrorist? What state is he supposed to have been working for in this propaganda against Putin? None of this is in the article, even as an accusation, although I would not be surprised if some accused him of that since even in the US people who are thought to be "sympathizers" get accused in media of such things, and I would not be opposed to including such material as long as we have reliable sources for it. Western media sources consistently called him a journalist and he obviously was writing about news. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What propaganda organ? Chechenpress. The article Alexander Litvinenko does not mention he ever wrote for anyone else. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay I think that is a valid argument. I would say though that organizations like Al Jazeera come to mind, and I doubt that people who worked for Pravda were not recognized as journalists. I do wonder whether there are many news organizations who report on the Chechen Seperatist point of view, regardless of how we might feel about them. In the US, places like the New York Times and Fox News are accused of being propaganda and not journalism, and if anyone said about Bush what he said about Putin people would give them a similar criticism (as they do in fact). They wouldn't normally expect to be poisoned, but the 2001 anthrax attacks do come to mind as well. In any case unless your argument is met with facts, and certainly without consensus, it should probably hold. I will refrain from editing the article in this way until such standards are met; thank you for answering my question in good faith and so civilly. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Post mortem and burial

Litvinenko's post mortem examination and burial are discussed briefly in the article, but I seem to remember news reporting at the time saying, plausibly I suppose, that the post mortem was a tricky business because of the risk to those carrying it out, and also that he was buried in a carefully sealed lead coffin, unless this was some kind of tabloid exaggeration. I seem to remember the Health Protection Agency being involved, and his body not being released for burial for some time, while they had a good think about the public health challenges posed by the case. If anyone knows anything more about this and can find some sources, it would be good to have it in the article. Thanks. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko murder suspect says traitors should 'be exterminated'

Telegraph.co.uk Grey Fox (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If Litvinenko is or was an MI6 agent, then the murder suspect is just as likely to be too. Him "dying" could be a way to retire secretly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.161.109 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

"Strikingly, the only witness to the purported statement was Goldfarb, a representative of Boris Berezovsky. Also striking is the fact that a desperately ill man who hardly spoke sufficient English to order a cup of tea would be able to write a letter in beautiful, flowing English - or that he would choose to do so in English, rather than his native Russian."

According to who? This seems like an odd thing to say without a source. Either source it, or remove it. Raising doubts like this should not be done lightly. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for conspiracy theory. 81.226.213.2 (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alexandr Goldfarb and polonium

Polonium has been used in Israel for many years (ISBN 0743265947), particularly interesting is that it has been used where Alexandr Goldfarb was studying. The wikipedia entry is very bad if it does not contain this information, so it should be fixed or updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexandr Goldfarb studied at a place where they used polonium (ISBN 0743265947). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that mentions both Goldfarb and polonium in the same context? (Apart from Litvinenko case naturally.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Adding Goldfarb in this context may well be a BLP violation, so I have removed it. --Nug (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems we now have a reliable source for the speculation. Quote: "Goldfarb knows all about atomic energy."
--Petri Krohn (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The source, Russia Today, is widely considered a pro-Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece and therefore while it is amusing it lacks credibility. Thus it cannot be considered a reliable source. --Nug (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is getting interesting – here is another source that links Israel and poisoning by polonium 210:
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Speculation about a Israel connection is heating up in Russia. Here is one source that has translated this to English:

Quote: Meanwhile, an officer of the FSB, journalist Maksim Shevchenko, accused "Israel" in the murder with polonium-210 of not only Arafat, but also Litvinenko. In incoherent and unintelligible verbal eruption on one of the KGB websites Shevchenko wrote:
"What Litvinenko, a former Russian intelligence officer, engaged in the Caucasus and published continually on the website Kavkaz Center, has to do with Israel and the US? But Litvinenko was a man of Boris Berezovsky, and he, in recent years under the name of Elenin frequently visited Israel, has collaborated with Israel, etc.
Litvinenko collaborated with Alexander Goldfarb, who is an American agent for many, many years. He does not hide this, and he is proud of it. I personally do not rule out that both Arafat and Litvinenko - have the same proponents of murder and, perhaps, the same executioners".

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Petri. What other sources do you have to support the view that this is a jewish conspiracy? --Nug (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Nug, this is an extraordinary uncivil comment. I suggest you redact it. Shrigley (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

floating text on top of article

I'm getting the text

[[Image:Svetlana font example.png|link=List of mass shootings in the United States]]

on top of the article, it stays on the screen when scrolling. Any idea where it comes from? Ssscienccce (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Location of poisoning and other possible victims?

I've tried finding sources elsewhere on this and can't find anything so asking here. Has it been established where the poisoning likely took place and if other people were effected? If it took place in a restaurant, for example, the dishes used would be contaminated, dish washers would be exposed to it and possibly future diners as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.225.25 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to have severe problems with outdatedness and perhaps NPOV

Is it just me or does this article seem to be in pretty bad shape? Most of the references cited are from the 2006-2008 time frame, the years immediately following Litvinenko's death. Yet Britain in 2016 finished an extremely detailed inquiry which lays out a mountain of evidence supporting the inquiries conclusions (which are, inter alia, that Lugovoy and Kovtun killed Litvinenko with polonium, likely at the instigation of the FSB and Putin himself). I can't see that this inquiry is cited anywhere in this article, nor is Luke Harding's recent book A Very Expensive Poison. Nor are any of the developments in the years 2013-2016 mentioned. The first four references in the References section all appear to be attempts to discredit prevailing Western theories of the death. Additionally, there is odd material about additional suspects ("Vyacheslav" and "Igor"), with reference links that are dead or highly suspect -- these are people of whom the later British inquiry makes no mention. At best the article appears severely outdated, at worst it may be marred by deliberate trolling. As an only-occasional Wikipedian, I'm not sure how to get traction on these issues, but they appear to me to be serious ones. Slane00 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

More than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in state-regulated nuclear reactors.

An antistatic fan sold for $22.50 by NRD Static Control LLC of New York in the United States contains 31.5 millicuries of polonium-210. In theory, this is more than ten lethal doses, and someone with lab experience could extract it.

Both of these statements, as currently written, cannot be true. Fish+Karate 10:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And that is why the sentence starts with that word: "Contradicting this, an antistatic fan...". The statement about cheap polonium-210 from these fans are well documented. The other statement is also "a truth" by being repeated constantly world-wide. What to do... Bamka (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Here are some more links about this alternative source for Po-220: https://web.archive.org/web/20060313135203/http://www.2spi.com/catalog/photo/statmaster.shtml - http://www.amstat.com/staticmaster/staticmaster-anti-static-brushes/ - https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/kgb-agent-claims-poisoning.145129/page-2 - https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003715951.pdf Bamka (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Radioactive polonium listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radioactive polonium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Assassination — suspected or actual?

Since the article states categorically that “he was poisoned by two Russians”, surely this must be an actual assassination, not just a “suspected” one?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is terribly written and needs to be updated. If Wikipedia's determination is that an ECHR ruling is adequate to list Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun as the perpetrators, then the article needs to be clearly written such that it has been determined that they are guilty of murder. I don't see any reason to believe that the ECHR's finding should be considered a "conviction", as is required to list them as "perpetrators", as per the requirements at WP:BLPCRIME. I'm pretty sure that trials in absentia are illegal in the UK (hence the two have not been convicted and thus they haven't been extradited from Russia), and this ECHR ruling does nothing to change that. Were they to return to the UK tomorrow, they would still need to be tried for murder. Because they have not been *convicted*. Note that Lugovoy's and Kovtun's pages also do not call them murderers. "Suspects", yes; "perpetrators", no. Not until they're *convicted*.
The correct way to handle this according to Wiki policy and the ECHR finding is to say that this has been determined to be a homicide, that Russia has been found to be responsible, and that the two primary *suspects* are Lugovoy and Kovtun. It can further be explained in the article that the ECHR determined that they were responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. But they were not actually tried or convicted for this (i.e., they were not present to mount a defense for themselves). So they haven't been convicted and we can't say they're guilty. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You are replying to a post written in May 2020. And the ECHR conclusion was published in September 2021. I do not think that in May 2020 anyone knew what would happen in September 2021. And yes, the article needs to be updated.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal standard of proof required to affirm a conviction. Here is what the Court says:

154. In the present case, the circumstances of Mr Litvinenko’s death are no longer a “matter of speculation and assumption”. It has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was poisoned with polonium 210, a rare radioactive isotope. It has been further established, also beyond reasonable doubt, that the poison was administered by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun.

157. In these circumstances, the Court rejects the Government’s [Russia] assertion that the perpetrator or perpetrators of the assassination have not been identified. In the light of the documentary and other evidence which the parties have submitted to it, the Court, having regard to the standard of proof which it habitually employs when ascertaining whether there is a basis in fact for an allegation of unlawful killing, namely proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, finds it established that the assassination was carried out by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun.

Renat 11:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Polonium As A Trace

Just wondering if it is true that polonium is used as a trace. From what I have heard in the past is that a person infected with radiation then passes on small amounts of radiation to the people he or she comes into contact with, forming a type of trace that can be monitored. I have been told that even the CIA uses similar techniques, but I'm wondering if this is practical or just speculation. It seems if Russia or any other nation/organization wanted someone dead there are far easier, safer and more cost effective ways of doing it. EZC195 14 January 2008.

Never mind. There seems to be mention of this in the article. If anyone else has more information about this I would be very interested in it. EZC195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there are vastly easier ways to murder someone without creating such a fuss or leaving such an easy-to-follow trail. Furthermore, by using Polonium specifically, this is clearly a message. It says "You know who did this" - because simple analysis of the trace isotope ratios tells you precisely where the polonium was made and the stuff gets everywhere and leaves a very easy-to-follow trail. It's likely that the British authorities know not just which country it came from - but also which nuclear plant and even which reactor within that plant (some have claimed that you can even tell where, within the reactor, it came from). The ratio of Polonium to Lead also tells you precisely (to within a day or two if your analysis is careful enough) when the stuff was made. Nobody in their right mind would leave such an obvious trail rather than using a more conventional poison. Nastier still, they'd have known that this would not be a clean death. That's how it's known that it came from a Russian reactor and not (say) a British one. Whoever did this was sending a message to either the British authorities - or to other people in Litvinenko's position that says "You know who we are - and we're just reminding you how easily we can do this, and how willing we are to act - even in central London." - that's the only reasonable interpretation of these events. If they'd just wanted someone 'vanished' quietly - they'd have much easier and less risky ways to do it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not so certain about that. Polonium was historically frequently referred to as an isotope that only has a alpha radiation which means that once it's inside the body, you can't prove it's there.
This is actually false since both some is excreted and you can detect it then, also one in 100,000 disintegrations generates a gamma ray at 800 keV ( https://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Po-210+A ). It used to be difficult to identify this, but current detectors are so sensible they can identify it even with a low amount of Po210 Jmdwp (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

BBC refs ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko/Archive_2&oldid=1197459719"